- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7333 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI GANESHA S/O PERGU MUKHARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR. ATTIKARIBETTU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, R/AT NO.1-141, NEAR SINDHUR FACTORY, KAKVA POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K DISTRICT – 574 154 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DAKSHINA KANNADA ZILLA PANCHAYAT, ASHOKNAGAR, KOTTARA POST, MANGALURU. D.K. DIST. – 575 006 REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3. ATTIKARIBETTU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, ATTIKARIBETTU VILLAGE AND POST, MULKI, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K DISTRICT – 574 154 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. ATTIKARIBETTU VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 ATTIKARIBETTU VILLAGE AND POST, MULKI, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K DISTRICT – 574 154 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITH KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHARANJITH SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/01/2026 BERAING NO. AA.GRA.PAM.SA.233/2025- 26 PASSED BY THE R3 RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-A AND GRANT HIM ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING THE FULL BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL I.E. 23/01/2020 TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT I.E. 07/02/2024 ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE THE MONETARY BENEFITS BECAME DUE TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned dated 27.01.2026 bearing No.Aa.Gra.Pam.Sa.233/2025-26 passed by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A and grant him all the consequential benefits including the full back wages from the date of dismissal i.e., 23.01.2020 till the date of reinstatement i.e., 07.02.2024 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the monetary benefits became due till the date of payment. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner, who was working in respondent Nos.2 to 4 - Panchayat was dismissed on 23.01.2020 from the post of a Bill Collector leading to the petitioner approaching this Court in W.P.No.543/2022, which was disposed of by this Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner and further directing the respondents to take action against the petitioner after fulfilling the principles of natural justice. In W.P.No.543/2022 dated 06.04.2023, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court held as under: “Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner herein is assailing order dated 24.11.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-A) dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirming the Resolution dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure-B) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 issued by the 3rd respondent dismissing the petitioner from the post of the Bill Collector. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the sole ground urged by Sri Rajashekar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent- authorities have removed the petitioner from the service without issuing notice nor conducting any Departmental Enquiry as contemplated under Article 311 of Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, Sri A.K.Vasanth, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that, proceedings against the petitioner is pending consideration under the provisions of POCSO Act, and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the Resolution passed by the respondent-Grama Panchayat, whereby, the petitioner was working as Bill Collector and a criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner under Section 7, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, read with Section 354 (A) (1) of IPC, before the Mulki Police Station, Mangalore city. Pursuant to the same, respondent-Grama Panchayat without conducting any enquiry, dismissed the petitioner from the service. It is well established principle in law that, that permanent employee requires to be removed from service only after conducting an enquiry as per the relevant rules of the respondent-authority and principles of natural justice has to be followed while conducting the enquiry and therefore, I - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 am of the view that, both the respondent-authorities have committed an error in dismissing the petitioner from the post of Bill Collector and accordingly, the writ petition requires to be allowed and accordingly, allowed. Order dated 24.11.2021 passed by 2nd respondent, confirming the Resolution dated 23.01.2020, and the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide No.Aa.Gra.Pan.Sibbandi Kadata 216/2019-2020 on 23.01.2020 produced at Annexures-A, - 5 - WP No. 543 of 2022 B and C respectively are hereby set aside. The petitioner is liable to be reinstated into service forthwith and respondent-authorities are directed to take action against the petitioner only after fulfilling the norms of principles of natural justice. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.” 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent - Panchayat preferred an appeal in W.A.No.543/2023, which was dismissed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to exercise their discretion on the request of payment of back wages in favour of the petitioner during the period he was out of employment. 5. In W.A.No.543/2023, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order: “1. This intra-court Appeal seeks to calls in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 06.04.2023 whereby - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 Private Respondent’s W.P.No.543/2022 (S-DIS) having been favoured, his dismissal from service is set at naught with a direction to reinstate him in the position forthwith. Learned Judge has reserved liberty to the Appellant -Gram Panchayath to initiate disciplinary action, if it so desires against the Respondent herein. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, only a criminal case was registered against the Respondent herein and the same has been still pending. That being the position, he could not have been dismissed from service without holding any enquiry. 3. In a society like ours, job more often than not, happens to be predominant source of livelihood and therefore snatching away a job (in public employment), like the one that has happened in the case at hand, virtually amounts to taking away the means of livelihood of the employee. That offends the pith & substance of fundamental right to life & liberty constitutionally guaranteed under Article 21 in the light of OLGA TELLIS vs BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AIR 1986 SC 180. That apart, no employee can be punished that too by way of dismissal from service without giving an opportunity of hearing. The principles of natural justice as being a part of Article 14. Ours being a Welfare State, Article 12 - Entities have to conduct themselves as model employers and their decisions should be pregnant with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 human values. It is worth reproducing what Justice Felix Frankfurter of US Supreme Court had observed in JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE Vs McGRATH, 95 L Ed 817: “…Validity and moral authority of a conclusion largely depend on the mode by which it was reached… No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. Nor has a better way been found for generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done…” 4. Ordinarily where an employee is convicted & sentenced for an offence involving moral turpitude, it is now largely settled that on that ground per se, he can be removed from the employment. Thus, had the Respondent been convicted & sentenced for such an offence and on that ground he was removed from service, the Appellants could have had an arguable case for examination in Appeal. However, that question does not arise in this case. In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy. However, in the fitness of the facts, we leave it to the Appellants to decide in their discretion on the request for payment of backwages during the period the Respondent has been out of employment.” 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the said order attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondents and the Hon'ble Division Bench specifically directing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 the respondents to consider the grant of back wages for the entire period during which he was out of employment, the respondents have proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 restricting the grant of interest at 4% only for a period of 1 year i.e., instead of the entire period of 4 years from 23.01.2020 to 07.02.2024 when the petitioner was out of employment and as such, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Division Bench while confirming the order of reinstatement passed by the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent- Panchayath to consider grant of back wages in the discretion of the Panchayat for the entire period of 4 years when the petitioner was out of employment from 23.01.2020 to 07.02.2024. However, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the interest on back wages is quantified at 4% only for a period of one year, which amounts to Rs.28,964/- and not for the entire period of four years as directed specifically by the Hon'ble Division - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 Bench in W.A.No.543/2023, which has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the respondent-Panchayat. 9. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to declining/refusing to grant interest in favour of the petitioner on the back wages for the period from 23.01.2020 to 07.02.2024 and take appropriate decision within a stipulated time frame. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed insofar as it relates to the respondent-Panchayath declining/refusing to grant interest in favour of the petitioner for the entire period of 23.01.2020 to 07.02.2024 is hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remitted back for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest for the entire period and take appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders within a period of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20312 WP No. 7333 of 2026 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13